Let $F_1,F_2,\dots$ be sets in some sigma algebra, let $E_i = F_i \setminus\bigcup_{j<i} F_j$. It is true that now $E_i$ and $F_i$ are disjoint, but is it true that $\bigcup_{i=1}^n E_i = \bigcup_{i=1}^n F_i$? the infinite case I can see, but not the finite case

  • $\begingroup$ What's true is that the $E_i$'s are disjoint. Also, I wonder how you can see the infinite case, because it is essentially the same proof for the finite case $\endgroup$ – user258700 May 1 '16 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ Normally $\text{“}{\cup}\text{''}$ is use for things like $A\cup B$ and $A_1\cup\cdots\cup A_n$, and $\text{“}\bigcup\text{''}$ for things like $\bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i$. I changed it. $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy May 1 '16 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ @AhmedHussein I thought $\bigcup_{i=1}^nE_i = F_n$ that's how. $\endgroup$ – coke May 1 '16 at 14:31

$\text{“}E_i$ and $F_i$ are disjoint$\text{''}$ could be construed to mean $E_i\cap F_i=\varnothing$, and that is not true. It is true that $E_1,E_2,E_3,\ldots$ are pairwise disjoint.

Suppose $x\in\bigcup_i F_i$. Then there is some smallest index $i_0$ such that $x\in F_i$. For that smallest index $i_0$ we have $x\in E_{i_0}$; therefore $x\in\bigcup_i E_i$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.